Conservatives on this site?

[newtogolf]

Quote

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

 

[turtleback]

13 hours ago, newtogolf said:

 

We used to be a constitutional republic which, by constitutionally limiting the power of the federal government prevented that from happening.  Unfortunately over the last 75 years or so we have morphed much more into centrally directed democracy, largely, IMO, because of the amendment mandating popular election of Senators.  That took away the only balance of power between the states and the federal government.  So now we have much more of a democracy.  And much less freedom and liberty.

[acerimusdux]

22 hours ago, iacas said:

I'm not sure how accurate that is…

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/08/19/work-or-welfare-what-pays-more/

It's on the WSJ.com site, so I tend to want to believe it. It's the first link when I searched for "max welfare benefits" on Google. I'll highlight some of the numbers…

 

Even when their only source is CATO?

In theory the "max" benefits could maybe be that high, but I'm doubtful there would be many receiving those amounts. For example, only 15% of TANF recipients receive any housing aide. The numbers actually receiving the amounts possible from TANF, SNAP, WIC, and housing vouchers, in addition to receiving medicaid, are very small.  

Even if you just take the CATO data, and exclude housing and medicaid, the total benefits available from the other 5 programs combined range from $10k-$20.8k. And if we exclude the 3 outliers on each side, the range for the remaining 45 states is $11k to $15.5k. Those amounts seem reasonable for those programs.

And CATO's example household here is a single mother with 2 infant children. Poverty level for that household is $19,790. CATO's main argument in this study seems to be that they think benefits for a single mother with two infant children, already at about the poverty line for most of them, should be cut in order to give single mothers with infant children more incentive to work.  I would disagree.

That said, their cost estimates do seem high for housing. But, given that these programs have some notoriously long waiting lists (averaging for example 9 years in Baltimore and 8-10 years in Santa Clara California), I would wonder if it might not be possible to reduce those average benefits, but to then use those savings to serve more qualified applicants.

 

Edited November 6, 2015 by acerimusdux

[PJCdude]

I think the sad part of this 2 party system is that most of us want basically the same thing but are turned against each other based on unreliable propognda

socially I am liberal without a doubt. People who are for wasting money on the drug war and who are against gay marriage baffle me.

economically it is more complicated but for me it boils down to this:

yes I think there are gaps in the system where people on welfare are skating by without finding work and taking a few extra thousand off the government than they should. This should be fixed. However, this is peanuts compared to the amount that US corporations put in offshore accounts or the amount the goveremt was charged with subsidizing said companies post bailout.

Us middle class folk are the backbone of the country, however we are split as far as placing the blame and that will be our downfall. I think it lies more with the upper class and corporate America but that's just me and I can be convinced otherwise. I just know that we are headed in the wrong direction and the middle class is shrinking.

[rkim291968]

The two party system as is today will move US to be a weaker nation.   Ideologically the two parties are so far apart.  This division weakens the nation as we fight on every issue.    I blame this on politician of either party with extreme views.  Most of America is somewhere in the middle but the Tea parties of the world is pushing their belief on the rest.  I know it's generalization and a simplistic view and I hope I am wrong.

[CR McDivot]

15 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

The two party system as is today will move US to be a weaker nation.   Ideologically the two parties are so far apart.  This division weakens the nation as we fight on every issue.    I blame this on politician of either party with extreme views.  Most of America is somewhere in the middle but the Tea parties of the world is pushing their belief on the rest.  I know it's generalization and a simplistic view and I hope I am wrong.

I agree that the 2 party system has and will continue to weaken the nation.

But this is because both parties have sold their souls. Sure, the rhetoric is polemic, but the actions of either party when in power are remarkably similar. Both have succumbed to leftist social pressure, both treat the constitution as toilet paper, both think they have the right to bleed the citizen to death with regulations and taxes, both bow their cowardly knee to the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about. (Oh, I forgot, most of you were not yet born when he gave us the heads up.)

The Democraps and the Repuplicons seek only their own aggrandizement and behave like the filthy stinking  elitists they are cursed to be.

There is no political solution, and there is not the will to face what it will take to set things aright once more.

[CoachB25]

36 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

The two party system as is today will move US to be a weaker nation.   Ideologically the two parties are so far apart.  This division weakens the nation as we fight on every issue.    I blame this on politician of either party with extreme views.  Most of America is somewhere in the middle but the Tea parties of the world is pushing their belief on the rest.  I know it's generalization and a simplistic view and I hope I am wrong.

So, only the right has extreme elements? 

[rkim291968]

6 minutes ago, CoachB25 said:

So, only the right has extreme elements? 

No, both.  I said Tea Parties of the world.  It includes both sides but on the Rep side, they have a group clearly identified with a name I can use.  I was not picking on one party over the other. 

When the two parties give benefit of doubt to each other's view, that'd be a good start.   Think about it.

[newtogolf]

39 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

No, both.  I said Tea Parties of the world.  It includes both sides but on the Rep side, they have a group clearly identified with a name I can use.  I was not picking on one party over the other.

When the two parties give benefit of doubt to each other's view, that'd be a good start.   Think about it.

On the left they are called socialists.

All career politicians are corrupt, they are not there to serve the taxpayers, they are there to for themselves to promote their own agenda and fill their pockets with cash.  Until we implement term limits on all elected officials I doubt we will see any improvement in government. 

The RNC is attacking Trump, Fiorina and Carson because they are not career politicians and it scares the RNC that they won't have one of their puppets in office.  They would much prefer Bush, Kasich or Rubio and they will continue to place their resources behind them regardless of what the polls say.

[rkim291968]

26 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

The RNC is attacking Trump, Fiorina and Carson because they are not career politicians and it scares the RNC that they won't have one of their puppets in office.  They would much prefer Bush, Kasich or Rubio and they will continue to place their resources behind them regardless of what the polls say.

The RNC is backing Bush and his lookalikes b/c Trump/F/C have much less chance to win the general election.   They are going with the odds.   That's the problem with far right.  They want to push their agenda without compromise and that's not going to work when the rest of country is going left of center. 

[pfnaas]

I'm sure there are lots of conservatives on this site. They're like roaches, they are everywhere!

[saevel25]

Honestly there are really no liberals. If you go back to the 2008 Election. 
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

You see that all candidates fall into some form of government control (authoritarian) and most of them fall on the right. 

Here is the 2012 Election,
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

If you want to classify them as American Right versus American Left then that is fine. In the end nearly all politicians fall in that upper right quadrant. Which is more deregulated economy and Government control in society. 

Interestingly for how much conservatives want a smaller government they are actually some of the most Authoritarian candidates. 

You can see this when the government shifts form left to right. Nothing really changes. If people really want to say that the parties are far apart, they are wrong. At least I think they are.

When you see a liberal just realize you are not so different ;)
 

[boogielicious]

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Honestly there are really no liberals. If you go back to the 2008 Election. 
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

You see that all candidates fall into some form of government control (authoritarian) and most of them fall on the right. 

Here is the 2012 Election,
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

If you want to classify them as American Right versus American Left then that is fine. In the end nearly all politicians fall in that upper right quadrant. Which is more deregulated economy and Government control in society. 

Interestingly for how much conservatives want a smaller government they are actually some of the most Authoritarian candidates. 

You can see this when the government shifts form left to right. Nothing really changes. If people really want to say that the parties are far apart, they are wrong. At least I think they are.

When you see a liberal just realize you are not so different ;)
 

We see them as far apart, but in reality they are a lot closer together than in other countries. That is why it is so frustrating that they can't work together. It's like once they are elected, they revert to their 5th grade selves.

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

We see them as far apart, but in reality they are a lot closer together than in other countries. That is why it is so frustrating that they can't work together. It's like once they are elected, they revert to their 5th grade selves.

Harmony isn't good for politicians, there has to be a "good guy" and "bad guy" to maintain loyalty to the party.  If Coke and Pepsi tasted the same, there wouldn't be a need for both of them.

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Harmony isn't good for politicians, there has to be a "good guy" and "bad guy" to maintain loyalty to the party.  If Coke and Pepsi tasted the same, there wouldn't be a need for both of them.

There isn't a need for political parties. The best system would be that each individual representative and senator would just show up and discuss what's important for their district or state. Then they would discuss a compromise and vote on it. 

Even John Adams foresaw this problem,

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

 

[newtogolf]

11 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

There isn't a need for political parties. The best system would be that each individual representative and senator would just show up and discuss what's important for their district or state. Then they would discuss a compromise and vote on it.

Even John Adams foresaw this problem,

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

 

I don't disagree, but politics is big business and both parties are going to do everything they can to make sure a single party system never happens.

[mcanadiens]

8 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

There isn't a need for political parties. The best system would be that each individual representative and senator would just show up and discuss what's important for their district or state. Then they would discuss a compromise and vote on it. 

Even John Adams foresaw this problem,

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

 

Lovely thought, but the money machine can't be denied. Politicians need the massive publicity that requires the massive money that only the big parties can produce.

@newtogolf just beat me by a moment with a similar thought.. 

[saevel25]

21 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I don't disagree, but politics is big business and both parties are going to do everything they can to make sure a single party system never happens.

What  I said is not a single party system. It's a NO party system. A single party system would be like the Borg from Star Trek.